Let's Be Honest(Bible based Religion).

[KlaytoN]

---

this is nice - theists discussing the bible. But in the end, it all depends on one's interpretation.

Just like the famous line in the bible of LET THERE BE LIGHT, you can interpret it in many ways:

- it's related to the Big Bang
- god turned on a light-switch
- god opened the window and let light in

but if the theists wants to decipher each and every line of the Bible, then this would be fun to read

Therefore, wala diay na silay OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION FROM ABOVE?

Mahagbong ra individual speculation?

Pagka-tuytoy...

[defender_1611]

good morning guys.

@defender_1611 don't worry bro kasabot kaayo ko sa gi post nimo nga refutation, hehehe, di ko makig discuss nimo if wa koy idea about ana. basin ikaw bro maoy naay wa masabtan kay ang initial reaction nimo was not a refutation, you were running around the bush then. unya sa ak motobag bro ha kay Sunday man ron busy gamay.



@truthseeker

bai di na lng tika tawagon og bro kay tan-aw nako fanatical kayo ka bai based sa imong mga response. kana imong tobag bai no typical kaayo na sa osa ka tao nga magpabuta buta bisan klaro na kaayo nga daghang differences sa MSS(manuscripts). YOU ARE NOT BEING HONEST. Now mao nay differences natong duha bai, ako if I see nga sayop I call it sayop di ko BLIND nga follower. Besides ang atong gi question is not the AUTOGRAPHA, kasabot ka unsa ng AUTOGRAPHA? ang atrong gi question kay ang mga copies of the copies of the copies sa AUTOGRPHA. ayaw ra gud isira imong otok bai kay mahimo kang fanatical ana.

Di man sigoro sayop kong atong e question ang mga Manuscripts bai. In fact tungod sa proseso sa TEXTUAL CRITICISM nangawas ang mga tawgon ta lang nga finer nga mga versions sa bible. DI KO BLIND FOLLOWER.






@cool_romar

bro even John the Baptist ng duda man gani ni Hesus kong siya ba jud ang Messiah, so just keep your judgement na lang to yourself and thank you for your advice.

ok no problem paabot lang ko.

[KlaytoN]

sorry bro....kay dili ko mo deal sa mga atheist bro kay its a waste of time.....adto ra ko makig deal sa mga taw na ngita sa kamatuoran. your comment ignored. palihug respeto lang ta sa thread bro as we respect your thread Atheist and Theist Discussion. palihug lang repseto lang ta.

First, my post was not directed at your persona. Second, i won't consider it as trolling, rather a reality check. Coz if i'm in my right logical mind:

1. I wouldn't just allow this very serious issues with the Bible to be discussed, interpelated, and interpreted by just mere mortals. Because i'm aware that from 7 pages, this thread will go to a thousand pages, di mi maghuman ani. Mahimo pa hinuon religious debate.

2. Which will lead to my point, nga asa man diay ang DIRECTOR sa salida? na confused na ang mga actors and extras about sa script, kay aha diay ang director? on the sidelines? or I HATE TO SAY THIS, THE DIRECTOR IS AWOL OR WORSE JUST A FIGMENT OF IMAGINATION OF THE PLAYERS..

3. I would have prayed and requested for an intervention from the supposed Most High above. Lisod kaayo ang situation bai. What do you think mas malipay kaha ang Ginoo na blind tanan or all just speculations and the end result would be further division of His children? Maski ako brad even though i'm already an atheist, but i was stumped, baffled, dumbfounded by mandirigma's claims, coz once in my life i was a staunched supporter of SOLA SCRIPTURA.. My instinct is now telling me to challenge you guys, if you really think that HE is real, why waste time in arguing, instead go directly do HIM and ask HIM to reveal the answers once and for all. And phuleeeeeze kanang direct answer ha gikan KANIYA, kanang walay bias.

I'm not here to troll. I'm asking you to try your faith and ask for His real intervention.

I'm outta here..

[Mandirigma]

ok no problem paabot lang ko. nganu man ing.ana man imo ika sulti sa ako refutation bay? kay tungod ba na refute nako imong statement? hehehehe.

gi unsa diay nako pagtubag?

actually wala bro, wa nimo ma refute in fact imong statement ni add sa akong ponto nga indeed nigamit si Erasmus og karaan nga MSS og matud pa sa obang scholar, unreliable.

did you noticed nga instead of putting up a defense against the allegation of using an unreliable ms nisulti ra sila nga "its not the date" ang issue but ang content. hahahaha. mora ba ug nanghugas sila daan BUT way klarong depensa nganong naka ingun sila nga "its not the date but the blah blah blah"

then osa pod ka ponto bro, wa koy nakita nga refutation regarding atong Rev. where allegedly si Erasmus wa nigamit og greek nga manuscript.

then kana pod ang John mo contradict sa obang mga reliable nga mga manuscript.

correction pod bro dili na ten but 17.

then hangyo lang ko ba nga ayaw pod sobrae imong pagka hambugero bro ha. kalma lang, discuss ra ni ato, lain ra ba mo mga fundamentalists kay mo olbo dayun mo basta e question na inyong baruganan nya kamo kosog kaayo mo mo question sa oban.

[Mandirigma]

e repost ko ani para di ta mawala sa topic...

In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus had no Greek manuscript (=MS) (he only used half a dozen, very late MSS for the whole New Testament any way). He was therefore forced to ?back-translate? the Latin into Greek and by so doing he created seventeen variants which have never been found in any other Greek MS of Revelation! He merely guessed at what the Greek might have been.

AND also this...

1 John 5:7-8, Erasmus followed the majority of MSS in reading ?there are three witnesses in heaven, the Spirit and the water and the blood.? However, there was an uproar in some Roman Catholic circles because his text did not read ?there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.? Erasmus said that he did not put that in the text because he found no Greek MSS which had that reading. This implicit challenge?viz., that if he found such a reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his text?did not go unnoticed. In 1520, a scribe at Oxford named Roy made such a Greek MS (codex 61, now in Dublin). Erasmus? third edition had the second reading because such a Greek MS was ?made to order? to fill the challenge! To date, only a handful of Greek MSS have been discovered which have the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8, though none of them is demonstrably earlier than the sixteenth century.

[Mandirigma]

bro maayong gabei....This is my 1st refutation sa imong post....(See red bold letters)

A. The usual complaint, voiced by Doug Kutilek, an opponent of the AV, goes something like this: "Erasmus had the feeblest of manuscripts. He chiefly used one manuscript from the Gospels from the 12th century, and one manuscript of Acts and the Epistles also from the 12th century . . . It was hastily produced . . . There is no ground whatsoever for accepting the Textus Receptus as the ultimate in precisely representing the original text of the New Testament . . . It was in fact the most rudimentary and rustic, at best only a provisional text . . . The Greek texts of Griesbach, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Alford and Westcott and Hort were . . . a great improvement over the text of Erasmus because they more accurately presented the text of the New Testament in the form it came from the pens of the apostles." (1) This is very inaccurate and misleading.

What of the manuscripts he used? Erasmus was ever at work, ever collecting, comparing, publishing. He classified the Greek manuscripts and read the Fathers. By his travels he was brought into contact with all the intellectual currents of his time. (2) He looked for manuscripts everywhere during his travels and he borrowed them from everyone he could. His text was mainly based on the Basel manuscripts, but included readings from others to which he had access. He had collated many Greek manuscripts of the NT and was surrounded by all the commentaries and translations by the writings of Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome and Augustine. (3) Erasmus had access to Codex Vaticanus, but rejected its readings that were at variance with the Byzantine text. He also had access to D, Codex Bezae, but also rejected it. (4) The AV translators also had these variant readings and rejected them. (5) The readings of these much boasted manuscripts recently made available are largely those of the Vulgate. The Reformers knew of these readings and rejected them, as well as the Vulgate. (6) The pedigree of Erasmus' "late minuscule manuscripts" thus date back to antiquity. (7) The text Erasmus chose had an outstanding history in the Greek, Syrian and Waldensian churches. (

The texts used by Erasmus for his first edition:

1. 1 - 11th century, contained the Gospels, Acts, Epistles. Erasmus did not rely very much on 1 because it read too much like Codex B/Vaticanus. (9)

2. 2 - 15th century, contained the Gospels.

3. 2ap - 12th-14th century, contained Acts and the Epistles. Erasmus depended upon 2 and 2ap because they were the best and most accurate texts. (10)

4. 4ap - 15th century, containing Revelation.

Erasmus mainly used 2 and 2ap, occasionally used 1 and 4ap. (11) Erasmus may have had as many as 10 manuscripts at his disposal, 4 from England, 5 at Basle and one loaned to him by John Reuchlin. (12)

Thomas Strouse mentions that the earliest of his manuscripts went back to the 5th century, "advisedly." (13) Bishop Charles John Ellicott, Chairman of the Revision Committee, said about the Received Text:

" The manuscripts which Erasmus used differ, for the most part, only in small and insignificant details from the bulk of the cursive manuscripts The general character of their text is the same. By this observation the pedigree of the Received Text is carried up beyond the individual manuscripts used by Erasmus . . . That pedigree stretches back to remote antiquity. The first ancestor of the Received Text was at least contemporary with the oldest of our extant manuscripts, if not older than any one of them." (14)

So the question is not, "How old were those manuscripts that Erasmus used?" but rather whether those "late manuscripts" accurately preserve the originals. We state the Erasmus manuscripts were part of that Traditional stream of manuscripts that have always been accepted by God's people. The age of the individual manuscripts is not important, but rather their accuracy in preserving the older manuscripts which contained the very Word of God.

2nd refutation nako: (See blue bold letters)


A. Yes, there is overwhelming evidence for it. We may say indeed that if anyone doubts whether I John 5:7,8 belongs in Scripture, thy are wholly ignorant of the textual support in favor of it. First John 5:7,8 is an integral part of Scripture.

The earliest references to it would be Tertullian (160-230), Cyprian (200-25, Priscillian (d. 385), Cassiodorus (480-570), Augustine (5th century), Athanasius (4th century) and Jerome (4th century). (1) It appears in the Vulgate. (2) It also appears in Manuscript 61 and Codex Ravianus. Stephanus found it in 9 of his 16 manuscripts. (3)

Its attack and deletion from some manuscripts no doubt arises from the heresies in the early church, especially Arians. Those who oppose the inclusion of I John 5:7 are supporting the Unitarians and Jehovah Witnesses while ignoring the overwhelming mass of manuscript evidence.

Erasmus' role in the debate over these verses had been distorted by enemies of the AV. The standard position that liberals assume reads something as follows, given by AV-critic James White:

"When the first edition of Erasmus' work came out in 1516 . . . (I John 5:7, was not in the text for a very simple reason: it was not found in any Greek manuscript of I John that Erasmus had examined. Instead, the phrase was found only in the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus rightly did not include it in the first or second editions. The note in the Annotations simply said, 'In the Greek codex I find only this about the threefold testimony: 'because there are three witnesses, spirit, water and blood.' ' His reliance upon the Greek manuscripts caused quite a stir . . . Since Erasmus had promised, in his response to Edward Lee, to include the passage should a Greek manuscript be found that contained it, he was constrained to insert the phrase in the third edition when presented with an Irish manuscript that contained the disputed phrase." (4)

This is furthered by Stewart Custer of Bob Jones University:

"Now Erasmus made a rash promise. He said, 'If you can show me a Greek manuscript that has the text in it, I will print it there' . . . They went back and summoned their scribes and got them to translate the Latin Vulgate into Greek and put that verse in. (It) came right back to him. The ink was hardly dry on the manuscript . . . those two manuscripts are 61 . . . the date is 16th century, the time of Erasmus. The other one is 629 . . . Those are the only two manuscripts out of those 5000 that have verse 7 in it . . . Told him frankly that if he didn't put that verse in, they'd excommunicate him. He, being a good Roman Catholic, put it in." (5)

Both White and Custer are in error! Now for the facts:

On the "fact" that Erasmus made a rash promise, this was demonstrated to be false. This remark is one of the cherished legends about the history of New Testament scholarship. It is no more than a legend. Erasmus did not put the verses in his third edition on the basis of any supposed promise to Edward Lee. (6) Even Bruce Metzger admitted that Erasmus' "promise" needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H.J. de Jonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies, who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion. (7)
Was the ink hardly dry on 61, as Custer claimed? Erasmus didn't see it until a year after it was produced. Custer simply exaggerated. (
What of Custer's claim that there were only 2 manuscripts that contained the verse? R.E. Brown said a year earlier than Custer (1982) that there were 8 manuscripts. And it wasn't "5000" manuscripts as Custer claimed for, as of 1982, only 498 Greek manuscripts had been examined and in eight of them, the verses are found. (9) How could Custer assume the other 4500 manuscripts did not have the verses?
Was Erasmus threatened with excommunication? No evidence exists of it (10) because by the time of the third edition, he had found sufficient evidence to include it. Erasmus initially defended his omission of the verses as late as October, 1524. He had changed his views sometime between 1522-1527. (11)

Note: correction lang bro sa statement na imong gi state sayop ning 17 actually 10 ra siya. (See green text and see brown text for my answer).

pangutana lang pod bro kung naa kay wala masabtan pod.....

mao ni ang imo attempt to refute the link i gave you.

by the way reminder lang pod nga ang issue diri is not to prove kong ang King James Version ba ang most reliable version nga bible BUT to prove or dismiss the claim kong daghan ba og variants og changes og mistranslation ang Bible.

nya based sa atong discussion karon so far na prove nako nga indeed daghan jud diay, indeed naay mga variants, indeed nag away away og way klaro nga agreement ang mga BIBLE SCHOLARS on some specific translations, you know why? tungod kay ang AUTOGRAPHA wa na diri, it cannot be found, that means wa tay sakto nga standard where to ma based ang mga translations.

then you guys are still in denial nga wlay variants ang bible og MSS? tsk tsk tsk...

even scholars magsumpaki man gani unsay sakto og unsay dili sakto, pasabot lahui lahi jud ang ilang pagsabot og tungod ani mo produced ni og lain na pod nga variants.

so ang question is If the bible we hve today is the inspired word of God, so asa man ani nila nga version? kay matud pa sa oban nga KJV ra jud ang sakto, pero daghan ang mo disagree. so asa man ani nila.

if these men were guided by the Holy Spirit then nganong lahi lahi man ang ilang pagsabot og translate? di ba dapat osa ra unta og duna dapat unity kay guided man kaha sila sa Holy Spirit?

mao ni ako pasabot bro nga mga hard questions nga seldom kaayo e wali sa mga pastor. og kong mangutana ta about ani ingnon dayun ta nga don't doubt the word of God when in reality ang Word of God w/c is ang AUTOGRPHA is already lost. mao to ang klaro nga inspired word of God.

nya magpaka haron ingnon jud mo nga walay variants, way mistranslation? tsk tsk

ang kjv lang daan kanang verse nga for there are 3 that bears witness, lalisonon man gani na naay obang scholar mo ingon nga addition or insertion ra na, wa na sa obang mga RELIABLE nga MSS.

omit, add then omit na pod mao nay history anang verse nga for there are 3 that bears witness bro.

[defender_1611]

First, my post was not directed at your persona. Second, i won't consider it as trolling, rather a reality check. Coz if i'm in my right logical mind:

1. I wouldn't just allow this very serious issues with the Bible to be discussed, interpelated, and interpreted by just mere mortals. Because i'm aware that from 7 pages, this thread will go to a thousand pages, di mi maghuman ani. Mahimo pa hinuon religious debate.

2. Which will lead to my point, nga asa man diay ang DIRECTOR sa salida? na confused na ang mga actors and extras about sa script, kay aha diay ang director? on the sidelines? or I HATE TO SAY THIS, THE DIRECTOR IS AWOL OR WORSE JUST A FIGMENT OF IMAGINATION OF THE PLAYERS..

3. I would have prayed and requested for an intervention from the supposed Most High above. Lisod kaayo ang situation bai. What do you think mas malipay kaha ang Ginoo na blind tanan or all just speculations and the end result would be further division of His children? Maski ako brad even though i'm already an atheist, but i was stumped, baffled, dumbfounded by mandirigma's claims, coz once in my life i was a staunched supporter of SOLA SCRIPTURA.. My instinct is now telling me to challenge you guys, if you really think that HE is real, why waste time in arguing, instead go directly do HIM and ask HIM to reveal the answers once and for all. And phuleeeeeze kanang direct answer ha gikan KANIYA, kanang walay bias.

I'm not here to troll. I'm asking you to try your faith and ask for His real intervention.

I'm outta here..

I dont care what you believe bro ang ako lang is respeto lang ta gamay bah. Total kamo gi respetohan man pod mo namu. ayaw lang ninyo lawgawa ang thread. kay kani amu ni mandirigma exchange of idea ra man ni amua.

[defender_1611]

mao ni ang imo attempt to refute the link i gave you.

by the way reminder lang pod nga ang issue diri is not to prove kong ang King James Version ba ang most reliable version nga bible BUT to prove or dismiss the claim kong daghan ba og variants og changes og mistranslation ang Bible.

nya based sa atong discussion karon so far na prove nako nga indeed daghan jud diay, indeed naay mga variants, indeed nag away away og way klaro nga agreement ang mga BIBLE SCHOLARS on some specific translations, you know why? tungod kay ang AUTOGRAPHA wa na diri, it cannot be found, that means wa tay sakto nga standard where to ma based ang mga translations.

then you guys are still in denial nga wlay variants ang bible og MSS? tsk tsk tsk...

even scholars magsumpaki man gani unsay sakto og unsay dili sakto, pasabot lahui lahi jud ang ilang pagsabot og tungod ani mo produced ni og lain na pod nga variants.

so ang question is If the bible we hve today is the inspired word of God, so asa man ani nila nga version? kay matud pa sa oban nga KJV ra jud ang sakto, pero daghan ang mo disagree. so asa man ani nila.

if these men were guided by the Holy Spirit then nganong lahi lahi man ang ilang pagsabot og translate? di ba dapat osa ra unta og duna dapat unity kay guided man kaha sila sa Holy Spirit?

mao ni ako pasabot bro nga mga hard questions nga seldom kaayo e wali sa mga pastor. og kong mangutana ta about ani ingnon dayun ta nga don't doubt the word of God when in reality ang Word of God w/c is ang AUTOGRPHA is already lost. mao to ang klaro nga inspired word of God.

nya magpaka haron ingnon jud mo nga walay variants, way mistranslation? tsk tsk

ang kjv lang daan kanang verse nga for there are 3 that bears witness, lalisonon man gani na naay obang scholar mo ingon nga addition or insertion ra na, wa na sa obang mga RELIABLE nga MSS.

omit, add then omit na pod mao nay history anang verse nga for there are 3 that bears witness bro.

That's ignorance of the history why Erasmus included it in later editions there are ms evidences which have a later dates than sinaiticus and vaticanus, that were produced and they are now extant in Dublin, Library in Ireland.

[defender_1611]

First, my post was not directed at your persona. Second, i won't consider it as trolling, rather a reality check. Coz if i'm in my right logical mind:

1. I wouldn't just allow this very serious issues with the Bible to be discussed, interpelated, and interpreted by just mere mortals. Because i'm aware that from 7 pages, this thread will go to a thousand pages, di mi maghuman ani. Mahimo pa hinuon religious debate.

2. Which will lead to my point, nga asa man diay ang DIRECTOR sa salida? na confused na ang mga actors and extras about sa script, kay aha diay ang director? on the sidelines? or I HATE TO SAY THIS, THE DIRECTOR IS AWOL OR WORSE JUST A FIGMENT OF IMAGINATION OF THE PLAYERS..

3. I would have prayed and requested for an intervention from the supposed Most High above. Lisod kaayo ang situation bai. What do you think mas malipay kaha ang Ginoo na blind tanan or all just speculations and the end result would be further division of His children? Maski ako brad even though i'm already an atheist, but i was stumped, baffled, dumbfounded by mandirigma's claims, coz once in my life i was a staunched supporter of SOLA SCRIPTURA.. My instinct is now telling me to challenge you guys, if you really think that HE is real, why waste time in arguing, instead go directly do HIM and ask HIM to reveal the answers once and for all. And phuleeeeeze kanang direct answer ha gikan KANIYA, kanang walay bias.

I'm not here to troll. I'm asking you to try your faith and ask for His real intervention.

I'm outta here..

maypa bro....salamat.

[cebu.opportunities]

MAo gyud mga bro... di nlng ko mag-apil2x ani...
basta, ga lain2x ang translation and interpretation sa mga taw ky they are not in oneness.